Skip to content

[ReleaseNotes][RemoveDIs] Add release note for deprecated insertion methods #127493

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 18, 2025
Merged

[ReleaseNotes][RemoveDIs] Add release note for deprecated insertion methods #127493

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7a3b7dd
[ReleaseNotes][RemoveDIs] Add release note for deprecated insertion m…
jmorse Feb 17, 2025
07a18c7
Reword
jmorse Feb 17, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions llvm/docs/ReleaseNotes.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -116,6 +116,8 @@ Changes to the LLVM IR
Changes to LLVM infrastructure
------------------------------

* Several methods that use Instruction pointers as insertion positions (moveBefore, getFirstNonPHI) have been deprecated in favour of overloads and variants that use `BasicBlock::iterator`s instead. The instruction-flavoured methods will be removed in a future release. This work is part of the [RemoveDIs](https://llvm.org/docs/RemoveDIsDebugInfo.html) project, the documentation for which contains instructions for updating call-sites using the deprecated methods.
Copy link
Contributor

@OCHyams OCHyams Feb 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couple of nits from me (sorry).

... that github ate.

I think there's some unnecessary ambiguity around whether moveBefore + getFirstNonPHI is the complete list of affected functions or not (I think both the word "several" and then having those two in parens is causing it). Can we be more precise?

Secondly, IMO I think changing "instruction-flavoured" to "pointer-flavoured" slightly improves clarity. YMMV though.

Copy link
Member Author

@jmorse jmorse Feb 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added some rewording to "Two methods", "pointer-flavoured", and stating that the methods use pointers as "code positions" because technically getFirstNonPHI isn't about insertion.

(It's a bit tricky to correctly abstract the wording over "this is about insertions but not all the functions are inserters".)


Changes to building LLVM
------------------------

Expand Down
Loading